Sushree Mohanty
Supreme Court Bench comprising of CJI SA Bobde, Justice Bopanna and Justice Ramasubramanian in its judgement has dismissed a plea filed by group of advocates challenging the validity and constitutionality of the offense of sedition under Section 124A IPC on the ground that the applicants have “no cause of action”.
The plea filed by three advocates, namely, Aditya Ranjan, Varun Thakur and V Elanchezhiyan has challenged that the sedition law is a colonial rule which was used as a weapon by the British against Indian Freedom fighters like Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak.
It is presently being used to smother the right to speak freely or freedom of expression and threaten the life and freedom of Indian citizens if they decide to communicate their disagreement against policies of government in power, the petition states.
The petitioners have added that the discriminate nature and unlawful implementation of the Section 124A against Journalists, women, and students or children in defiance from of the literal interpretation given by the Apex Court of India.
Supreme Court Bench comprising of CJI SA Bobde, Justice Bopanna and Justice Ramasubramanian , relying on the judgement of Kusum Ingots case held that “a law cannot be challenged without a cause of action”.
Senior Advocate Anoop George Chaudhari, representing for the petitioners submitted that while challenging he validity of Section 124A, they are also seeking for alternate remedies for implementation of appropriate rules regarding the matter.
“But we don’t have a case before us of persons rotting in jail. You come before us in a concrete case. Dismissed.”, CJI Bobde said.
As per the petition, the continuation of a draconian rule like 124-A in the Indian Penal Code without any means or laws for safeguarding one’s right as given under the UAPA is absurd and unjustifiable.
Additionally, it was alleged that the law does not set down any institutional obligation on the Police in case of an occurrence its abuse and no procedural laws are accessible under the Code of Criminal Procedure unlike the provisions warranted by UAPA.
Subsequently, Section 124-A should be inspected under the changed facts and conditions and furthermore on the blacksmith’s iron of necessity, arbitrariness law of proportionality.
The Petitioners also referred to the decision laid down by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Balwant Singh versus State of Punjab (1995), where the court ruled that shouting of slogans like “Khalistan Zindabad”, will not amount to commission of offence of sedition.
Additionally, the top court referred to the judgment delivered in the 2015 case of Shreya Singhal versus. Union of India where it opined that “a speech should be considered as a whole in a free, fair and liberal spirit”.
The petition contended that the authorities are dissecting certain words from the entire speech and invoking section 124A of the IPC, without any definite investigation or forming a nexus with the actions.
“Mere slapping of charge of sedition against a citizen endangers the right to live with dignity of the person and his family members forever. The media portrays the person charged as “Deshdrohi” whereas the seditious activities are imputed against the Government and in Hindi it may translate into “Rajdroh” (anti- government) which is not the same as “Deshdroh”. It causes chilling effect on other citizens and prevents them from exercising their fundamental right to criticize the Government and its policies through legitimate means”, the petition stated.
As indicated by the plea, the Right to question, scrutinize or criticize and change the public authorities and the Government through regular elections is a basic right guaranteed under democracy. However, the Sedition law under Section 124-A of IPC is a constant danger to the essential rights of millions including the petitioners.
“Therefore, section 124-A needs to be examined under the changed facts and circumstances and also on the anvil of ever-evolving tests of necessity, proportionality and arbitrariness,” Advocate Sanjay Pathak said.
The petition emphasized that the current matter is one of public interest, and directions should be given to police to follow the Court’s decision in Kedar Nath and Balwant Singh cases.